Diagnostic value of the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score. A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 5.8 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Roland E. Andersson, Joachim Stark
{"title":"Diagnostic value of the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score. A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Roland E. Andersson, Joachim Stark","doi":"10.1186/s13017-025-00582-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clinical scoring algorithms are cost efficient in patients with suspicion of acute appendicitis. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic properties of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score compared with the Alvarado score. The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for reports on the diagnostic properties of the AIR score from 2008 to July 18, 2024. A meta-analysis of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area and the sensitivity and specificity for all and advanced appendicitis patients was performed. Advanced appendicitis was defined as perforated or gangrenous appendicitis or appendicitis abscess or phlegmon or if described as complicated appendicitis. The risk of bias was estimated via the QUADAS-2 tool. The ROC areas of the AIR score and the Alvarado score were compared. A total of 26 reports with a total of 15.699 patients were included. The area under the ROC curve for the AIR score was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83–0.88) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.93 (CI 0.91–0.96) for those with advanced appendicitis, which was greater than the corresponding areas for the Alvarado score (0.79, CI 0.76; 0.81) and 0.88, CI 0.82; 0.95), respectively. At > 4 points, the sensitivity was 0.91 (CI 0.88; 0.94) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.95 (CI 0.94; 0.97) for those with advanced appendicitis. At > 3 points, the sensitivity was 0.95 (0.90; 0.97) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.99 (0.97; 0.99) for those with advanced appendicitis. At > 8 points, the specificity was 0.98 (0.97; 0.99) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.99 (0.97; 0.99) for those with advanced appendicitis. The included studies had a low risk for bias and low heterogeneity. The AIR score has a better diagnostic capacity than the Alvarado score does. The AIR score is a safe and efficient basis for risk-stratified management of patients suspected of having appendicitis.","PeriodicalId":48867,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-025-00582-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical scoring algorithms are cost efficient in patients with suspicion of acute appendicitis. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic properties of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score compared with the Alvarado score. The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for reports on the diagnostic properties of the AIR score from 2008 to July 18, 2024. A meta-analysis of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area and the sensitivity and specificity for all and advanced appendicitis patients was performed. Advanced appendicitis was defined as perforated or gangrenous appendicitis or appendicitis abscess or phlegmon or if described as complicated appendicitis. The risk of bias was estimated via the QUADAS-2 tool. The ROC areas of the AIR score and the Alvarado score were compared. A total of 26 reports with a total of 15.699 patients were included. The area under the ROC curve for the AIR score was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83–0.88) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.93 (CI 0.91–0.96) for those with advanced appendicitis, which was greater than the corresponding areas for the Alvarado score (0.79, CI 0.76; 0.81) and 0.88, CI 0.82; 0.95), respectively. At > 4 points, the sensitivity was 0.91 (CI 0.88; 0.94) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.95 (CI 0.94; 0.97) for those with advanced appendicitis. At > 3 points, the sensitivity was 0.95 (0.90; 0.97) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.99 (0.97; 0.99) for those with advanced appendicitis. At > 8 points, the specificity was 0.98 (0.97; 0.99) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.99 (0.97; 0.99) for those with advanced appendicitis. The included studies had a low risk for bias and low heterogeneity. The AIR score has a better diagnostic capacity than the Alvarado score does. The AIR score is a safe and efficient basis for risk-stratified management of patients suspected of having appendicitis.
阑尾炎炎症反应(AIR)评分的诊断价值。系统回顾和荟萃分析
临床评分算法是成本效益的患者怀疑急性阑尾炎。这是对阑尾炎炎症反应(AIR)评分与Alvarado评分的诊断特性的系统回顾和荟萃分析。检索了PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science和b谷歌Scholar数据库,检索了2008年至2024年7月18日关于AIR评分诊断特性的报告。对所有及晚期阑尾炎患者的受试者工作特征(ROC)面积、敏感性和特异性进行meta分析。晚期阑尾炎被定义为穿孔或坏疽性阑尾炎或阑尾炎脓肿或痰或如果描述为复杂的阑尾炎。通过QUADAS-2工具估计偏倚风险。比较AIR评分与Alvarado评分的ROC面积。共纳入26篇报道,15699例患者。所有阑尾炎患者AIR评分的ROC曲线下面积为0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.88),晚期阑尾炎患者的ROC曲线下面积为0.93 (CI 0.91-0.96),均大于Alvarado评分的相应面积(0.79,CI 0.76;0.81)和0.88,CI 0.82;分别为0.95)。在bbbb4点,敏感性为0.91 (CI 0.88;0.94)和0.95 (CI 0.94;晚期阑尾炎患者0.97)。在bb0 3点,灵敏度为0.95 (0.90;0.97), 0.99 (0.97;晚期阑尾炎患者0.99)。在bbbb8点,特异性为0.98 (0.97;0.99), 0.99 (0.97;晚期阑尾炎患者0.99)。纳入的研究偏倚风险低,异质性低。AIR评分比Alvarado评分具有更好的诊断能力。AIR评分是对疑似阑尾炎患者进行风险分层管理的安全有效的依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
World Journal of Emergency Surgery
World Journal of Emergency Surgery EMERGENCY MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Emergency Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal covering all facets of clinical and basic research in traumatic and non-traumatic emergency surgery and related fields. Topics include emergency surgery, acute care surgery, trauma surgery, intensive care, trauma management, and resuscitation, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信